Article
Proposal to Systematize the Reflection and Assessment of the
Teacher’s Practice on the Teaching of Functions
Yocelyn E. Parra-Urrea 1 and Luis R. Pino-Fan 2,*
Citation: Parra-Urrea, Y.E.;
Pino-Fan, L.R. Proposal to
Systematize the Reflection and
Assessment of the Teacher’s Practice
on the Teaching of Functions.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3330. https://
doi.org/10.3390/math10183330
Academic Editor: Luis Carlos
Contreras-González
Received: 30 July 2022
Accepted: 23 August 2022
Published: 14 September 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu-
tral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institu-
tional affiliations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Li-
censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and con-
ditions of the Creative Commons At-
tribution (CC BY) license (https://cre-
ativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3330. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10183330
1 Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Universidad San Sebastián, Santiago 8420524, Chile
2 Department of Ciencias Exactas, Universidad de Los Lagos, Osorno 5310883, Chile
* Correspondence: luis.pino@ulagos.cl
Abstract: This research proposes theoretical-methodological strategies and tools to guide teaching,
reflection, and assessment on the practice of the prospective teacher of mathematics when perform-
ing teaching and learning processes on the notion of function. It exemplifies our proposal’s use,
through the reflection and characterization of the didactic-mathematical knowledge, of a prospec-
tive Chilean teacher, underlying his practice of teaching the power function. For the development
of our proposal, we used the theoretical-methodological notions of the Didactic-Mathematical
Knowledge (DMK) model and micro-teaching contexts, understood as rich and essential spaces for
teacher education. As a conclusion, we could observe that the theoretical-methodological proposal
here presented serves to systematize the reflection and assessment processes of teaching practice
(one’s own or that of others) for the teaching of functions, and, thus, determine (or anticipate) ac-
tions that improve the teaching processes on this important mathematical notion.
Keywords: teacher education; teacher knowledge; reflection on practice; functions; micro-teaching
MSC: 97B50
1. Introduction
Numerous investigations have examined the knowledge that teachers should have
in order for their teaching practice to be as effective as possible and to facilitate the
learning of their students [1–6]. However, empirical research on the knowledge that
mathematics teachers possess is significantly less [7]. There are also few studies on the
practical experiences of teacher education, strengthening the didactic-mathematical
knowledge of prospective teachers and improving their teaching practice [8].
Currently, teacher education programs (at least in Latin America) aim to develop
pedagogical skills from field experiences, a component of professional education over
which less control is available. According to Fernández [9], it is essential to seek
experiences that allow prospective teachers to interact and explore, in shared contexts
(simulated and real), possible pedagogical problems that involve reflection and critical
analysis of teaching and learning processes. Dewey [10] proposes that instead of
providing extensive practice in typical classrooms, teacher preparation should create
opportunities for experimentation (simulations of teaching–learning processes) that allow
testing, learning, and the developing of discrete components of complex practice in
environments of reduced complexity. Concerning this, Grossman et al. [11] propose
incorporating in professional education ‘approximations of practice’ which would
provide prospective teachers with multiple opportunities to get involved in simulated
planning (of lessons, units, and classroom management), to explain mathematical notions,
and to receive immediate feedback on their performance. The investigation into
‘approximations of practice’ is known as micro-teaching. According to Mergler and Tangen
[12], micro-teaching involves planning and conducting an instructional process for a
www.mdpi.com/journal/mathematics
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3330 2 of 22

group of prospective teachers who fulfill students’ roles. Additionally, it allows future
teachers to identify the complexity of teaching by establishing a connection between
theory and practice. It admits participating in the feedback and self-reflection of the
process. By observing what others do, prospective teachers can reflect on how they will
run their lessons. Various studies (e.g., [9,12–16]) have indicated the benefits of micro-
teaching in teacher education processes. For example, it allows a safe and controlled
teaching environment that reduces real teaching situations’ complexity. Besides,
prospective teachers can experience a learning process based on collaboration, dialogue,
and peer discussion, which, according to Brookfield [17], helps them achieve critical
reflection.
This article focuses on one of the most relevant mathematics concepts and its
learning, widely discussed in scientific literature: the function. Several studies have
investigated the problems related to the teaching–learning processes of functions from
different dimensions and approaches. For example, [18] pointed out that the notion of
function (given mainly by definition) is cognitively challenging to achieve, and students
access the concept through examples in various forms: metaphors, representations, set
diagrams, among others. Functions admit various representations (algebraic, graphical,
tabular, verbal) that provide relevant information about particular aspects of the
mathematical object. However, none of them manages to fully describe the notion of
functions. Thus, teachers’ lack of competence in coordinating the multiple representations
associated with functions could hinder students’ understanding [19]. Moreover, from the
cognitive dimension, this could lead students to conceive function representations as
static and independent entities, i.e., they would have difficulty understanding that
different representations describe the same mathematical idea or notion [20]. According
to Makonye [21], using different contexts, and interrelating the various representations of
the function, promotes learning, procedural fluency and increases students’ interest in
studying functions.
Dede and Soybaş [22] point out that trainee teachers have difficulties in
differentiating and relating mathematical expressions representing a function or equation.
That is to say, prospective mathematics teachers’ knowledge of these concepts is based
only on ‘pure’ and fragmented definitions, preventing them from moving towards a
holistic meaning of function. In this respect, [23] already pointed out that teachers have
difficulties in conceptualizing functions, i.e., they approve of informal definitions of the
object, considered helpful in determining relationships’ functionality, and perceive them
as mathematically formal definitions. In this sense, [22] point out that providing students
with the definition is not enough to achieve a meaningful understanding of the function
object. They also show that trainee teachers define the notion of function without
considering some of the essential ‘sub-concepts’ inherent to the function (e.g., domain, co-
domain, preimage, variable, among others). Even [24] refers to two essential features of
the notion of function, arbitrariness and univalence. He points out that teachers do not
perceive the arbitrariness of functions, and very few can explain the importance and origin
of the requirement of univalence.
The complexity underlying the processes of function teaching and learning has led
the research community (e.g., [25,26]) to discuss the question: What is the knowledge that
the mathematics teacher, or the prospective mathematics teacher, needs to teach
functions? However, there is still no consensus on the answer.
Given all of the above, in this article, we have set out to go a step further, and because
of the large amount and diversity of information on the subject, we ask ourselves the
following questions:
 What dimensions and components might mathematics teachers consider to guide
teaching on functions?
 How can we promote and systematize the reflection of future mathematics teachers
(or teachers) on the function lessons they design and implement?
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3330 3 of 22

To answer these questions, we have combined two research agendas: on the one
hand, that of the mathematics teacher’s knowledge and, on the other, the spaces of
reflection on practice, such as that offered by micro-teaching. The results of this research
served to build a methodological proposal with criteria and descriptors that allow
carrying out processes of reflection on the teaching practice to teach the notion of function.
These criteria and descriptors are an essential part of the teacher’s didactic-mathematical
knowledge.

2. Theoretical Framework
At an international level, various proposals and models attempt to describe the
components that make up the knowledge of the teacher of mathematics [27]. This study
uses the Didactic-Mathematical Knowledge model (DMK) [6,28]. It allows us to have a
more integrated vision of the dimensions of mathematics teaching and learning processes,
which a mathematics teacher should, ideally, know. Furthermore, the DMK model allows
utilizing the Onto-Semiotic Approach’s theoretical-methodological tools [29,30] to
operationalize the dimensions and sub-dimensions of the didactic-mathematical
knowledge proposed with the model.
The DMK model proposes three major dimensions for interpreting and
characterizing the teacher’s knowledge: mathematical, didactical, and meta didactic-
mathematical. The mathematical dimension refers to the knowledge that allows the
teacher to solve a mathematical activity (on a particular notion) intended for the classroom
and link it with other mathematical notions found later in the school mathematics
curriculum [28]. For its part, the didactical dimension refers to the knowledge and
essential aspects of the teacher’s work in each of the facets involved in the processes of
mathematics instruction. That is, it includes six subcategories: knowledge about the
fundamental characteristics of mathematical objects (epistemic facet); knowledge about
students’ cognitive aspects and prior knowledge (cognitive facet); knowledge about
students’ interests, needs, attitudes and emotions (affective facet); knowledge about
students’ capacity for autonomy and the interactions that arise in the teaching and
learning processes (interactional facet); knowledge about material resources, classroom
conditions and temporality to promote learning (mediational facet); and knowledge about
the school curriculum, didactic innovation and sociocultural aspects of students
(ecological facet) [6,28].
In this article, the third dimension is of particular relevance. The meta didactic-
mathematical [31], which refers to knowledge about institutional conditions, norms and
meta-norms that regulate classroom and content management, mechanisms that allow
assessing the didactic suitability in the teaching and learning processes to reflect on the
teaching practice exercised and determine actions that promote suitable mathematical
instruction processes [6].
The DMK model proposes, for each one of its dimensions and facets, various
methodological tools that allow its operationalization. Concerning the third dimension,
the notion of didactic suitability is proposed [29], which articulates, in a systemic and
coherent way, the six facets of the didactical dimension mentioned above. The authors in
[6] describe the six-partial didactic suitability criteria as follows:
 Epistemic suitability refers to the mathematics taught being good mathematics.
Besides taking as a reference the prescribed curriculum, it is a matter of taking as a
reference the institutional mathematics that has been transposed into the curriculum.
 Ecological suitability is the degree of adaptation of the mathematical instruction
process to the institutional and curricular guidelines and to the socio-cultural
conditions of the students.
 Cognitive suitability makes it possible to assess both the relationship between
students’ prior knowledge and the intended/implemented learning, and the
similarity of the acquired learning with respect to the intended/implemented
learning.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3330 4 of 22

 Affective suitability assesses how involved the student is in the mathematical

instructional process.
 Interactional suitability is the degree to which interactions (between the teacher and
the students and among students) favor the teaching and learning process and allow
the resolution of students’ concerns and difficulties.
 Mediational suitability makes it possible to assess the relevance of the material and
temporal resources in the mathematical instruction process.
The notion of didactic suitability, dimensions, and criteria represents a guiding
resource for effective classroom management, allowing the assessment of planned or
implemented educational actions. For this, in various studies [32,33], tables that describe
generic components and indicators that constitute a guide for analysis and reflection on
each one of the facets of the DMK model have been presented.
In the next section, didactic suitability criteria are presented to guide teaching,
reflection, and assessment on the practice of the prospective teacher of mathematics when
performing teaching and learning processes on the notion of function.

3. Systematizing Reflection on the Teaching of Functions

As described in the background section, the notion of function has been the subject
of attention in different theoretical approaches, especially on issues regarding students’
cognitive difficulties with this mathematical object and on the difficulties of instructional
processes for teaching functions. For example, regarding the representations, [34] noted
that the cognitive difficulties students encounter are the product of traditional teaching
habits, since the vast predominance of the algebraic register (symbolic-formal) prevents
students from gaining flexibility in the passage from one register to another. In addition
to the works that show the types of representations traditionally used to introduce and
study the notion of function, or their advantages and disadvantages (e.g., [35,36]), other
studies focus on the resources. For example, the metaphors that teachers use to ‘facilitate’
students’ understanding. They can serve as conceptual bridges (which also allows
expanding the meaning of a person’s notion of function), but are usually used in an
unconscientious way under the belief that the effects on students’ understanding are
harmless [37].
Sanchez and Llinares [38] point out that prospective mathematics teachers have
limitations concerning their students’ knowledge, understanding, or skills. Besides, they
highlight the need for teacher education programs to emphasize that knowledge of
content integrates the different representations of mathematical objects, and that
knowledge of pedagogical content allows discerning the problems and difficulties related
to concepts. In terms of motivational strategies, teachers should consider it relevant to
present contextualized everyday life problems to motivate students and justify the use of
functions. Nyikahadzoyi [25] proposes a theoretical framework of the knowledge
required by mathematics teachers for teaching functions. The study recognizes the
characteristics of arbitrariness and univalence as essential elements of functions. It also
describes the importance of approaching the teaching of functions from different
representations using an extensive collection of examples to explain the mathematical
object’s usefulness and link functions with other notions to show their primary and
unifying character. Likewise, the study points out the importance of promoting situations
presenting functions with explicit domains and ranges in the instructional process. Other
aspects described in this theoretical framework refer to the teacher’s knowledge of the
various cognitive obstacles associated with the use of representations, the school
curriculum, and the various standard and advanced technologies that could facilitate
learning.
The treatment of teachers’ examples in the classroom allows identifying significant
aspects of their pedagogical and mathematical knowledge base, supporting or limiting
students’ learning [39]. In this sense, according to [40], the examples presented by teachers
in training in the development of their lessons correspond mostly to typical examples, or
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3330 5 of 22

exercises that require the use of procedures or the application of theorems with which
students learn algorithms, as a resolution tool. On the other hand, more experienced
teachers use examples that arise after the exploratory phase of the notion of function, i.e.,
students face deepening of the concept and its various representations. They are examples
that aim to clarify and expand the cognizable characteristics of the notion of function,
address students’ doubts, and avoid confusion.
Sintema and Marban [41] continue to point out that teachers in training have
difficulties understanding the notion of function and have little knowledge about this
mathematical object. In their study, they conclude, for example, that teachers are aware of
the conditions under which inverse functions exist. However, they confuse the
composition of functions with ordinary multiplication, exhibit insufficient knowledge of
the meaning of inverse functions, and present inconveniences to promote real-life
situations that could favor their students’ learning of functions and their motivation.
What is presented so far is an overview of the scientific literature’s advances and
contributions to the teaching and learning of functions. In this article, we cannot be
exhaustive for space reasons. However, Tables 1–6 summarize the in-depth literature
review of this work, which constitutes our proposed criteria and descriptors for each one
of the six suitability criteria (epistemic, cognitive, affective, mediational, interactional, and
ecological). In sum, to elaborate our proposal of components and descriptors, on the
criteria of didactic suitability, specific for the teaching of functions, we have based
ourselves on the review and contributions of scientific literature on the subject. In [25] a
theoretical framework of the teacher’s knowledge of functions is presented, and the
results of a historical-epistemological and curricular study in [42], which allowed the
identification of the following diverse meanings that the notion of function has acquired
throughout its origin, evolution, and formalization: (1) as correspondence; (2) relationship
between variable magnitudes; (3) as graphic representation; (4) as analytical expression;
(5) as arbitrary correspondence; and (6) as function from set theory.
Thus, Tables 1–6 could be considered the didactic-mathematical knowledge of
reference for the teaching of functions and also constitute a theoretical-methodological
proposal that allows systematization of the reflection and assessment processes of the
teaching practice (one’s own or that of others) and, thus, determine (or anticipate) actions
that improve the teaching processes on the notion of function.

Table 1. Epistemic suitability for teaching functions.

Components Indicators
Problems that mobilize, representatively, the six reference meanings of
the function are presented.
Problems to reinforce previous knowledge related to the notion of
function are presented.
Situations- Problems to exemplify different definitions (informal, pre-formal, and
Problems formal) of the notion of function are presented [40].
Problems in purely mathematical contexts to reinforce learning about
functions are presented.
Contextualized problems from everyday life or other sciences are
presented to reinforce learning about functions [21]
Representations linked to the function (verbal, symbolic/algebraic,
tabular, graphic, and iconic) are mobilized [43,44].
Treatments are promoted in the various representation registers (verbal,
Languages
algebraic, tabular, and graphic). For example, given the function 𝑓: 𝑅 →
𝑅 defined by 𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑥 + 2𝑥 + 1 , a factoring treatment is applied to
obtain the function 𝑓: 𝑅 → 𝑅 defined by 𝑓(𝑥) = (𝑥 + 1) The treatment
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3330 6 of 22

of the original function must not alter the domain or range of the resulting
function. Otherwise, the function is not the same.
Conversions are promoted between the various representation registers
(verbal, algebraic, tabular, and graphic). For example, to access the idea
of continuity, it is convenient to use a graphic register. To enhance the
idea of correspondence, it is pertinent to use an algebraic register [35].
The definitions and procedures consider arbitrariness and univalence as
crucial characteristics of the notion of function [24].
The notion of domain and co-domain are presented as inherent elements
of the definition of function [22].
It promotes the meaning of the school curriculum’s notion of function to
Definitions, identify and argue functional relationships in its various representations.
propositions, Introductory statements and procedures relating to the notion of function
procedures, appropriate to the level of education are presented.
arguments Situations where students must justify their guesses and procedures are
promoted.
The various meanings of the notion of function are identified and
articulated, i.e., the function as correspondence, relationship between
variable magnitudes, graphical representation, analytical representation,
arbitrary correspondence, and from set theory [42].
Working with functions is not limited to the use of algebraic
representations to prevent them from being perceived only as formulae
and regularities.
The belief that a change in the independent variable necessarily implies a
change in the dependent variable is avoided; otherwise, a constant
function might not be considered a functional relationship [25].
Functional relationships that are not graphable are presented to avoid the
belief that any function supports a graphical representation.
Errors,
The error of using continuous curves for discrete functions is avoided
ambiguities,
[45].
and beliefs
Functional relationships that do not have an algebraic expression,
formula, or equation associated with them are presented to avoid the
belief that every function supports an algebraic representation.
Functions with specific domains and co-domains are presented to avoid
the belief that every function has a natural or real domain and co-domain.
‘Irregular’ graphs are presented to avoid the belief that any graphically
represented function has ‘good behavior’ (symmetrical, regular, smooth,
and continuous) [36].

Table 2. Cognitive suitability for teaching functions.

Components Indicators
It is confirmed that students have the necessary prior knowledge to
introduce the notion of function: patterns and regularities,
proportionality, among others.
Previous Previous knowledge is linked to the notion of function.
knowledge Since the notion of function is introduced, mathematical tasks that allow
passing through the various representations associated with that
mathematical object are presented, independent of the educational level
[44].
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3330 7 of 22

Curriculum
Expansion, reinforcement, counter-example, and analogy activities are
adaptations to
included. For example, display a graphical representation to illustrate a
individual
correspondence that does not verify the definition of function [40].
differences
Various evaluation tools are used to verify the representativeness of the
Learning student’s personal meaning regarding the intended or implemented
meaning on the notion of function [46].
It promotes the study and analysis of the variability of phenomena subject
to change, where the notion of function has special significance totally
linked to its epistemological origins.
Mathematical tasks are proposed where the use of graphical
representation is a more efficient strategy of solving the situation problem
High cognitive than tabular or algebraic representation.
demand It differs and relates mathematical expressions that represent a function
or equation. For example, a linear function can be represented
algebraically as 𝑓: 𝑅 → 𝑅 defined by 𝑓(𝑥) = 2𝑥 and in the Cartesian
plane as a line. Students may associate the graphical representation with
the equation of the line and not to a functional relationship of real
numbers [22].

Table 3. Affective suitability for teaching functions.

Components Indicators
The notion of function is presented as a useful tool in solving various
mathematical problems from other sciences or everyday life [23].
There are situations in which functions serve as mathematical models for
Interests and the study of phenomena and for expressing dependence between
needs variables [42].
The study of functions is carried out in a similar way to their historical
evolution. That is to say, considering the problems and needs that gave
rise to that mathematical object.
Participation in proposed activities, perseverance, responsibility, among
others, are promoted [32].
Attitudes
Logical reasoning, argumentation, modeling, analytical thinking, and
problem-solving skills are favored.
Self-esteem is promoted, avoiding a negative predisposition to the study
Emotions of functions [32].
The precision and rigorous qualities of mathematics are highlighted.

Table 4. Interactional suitability for teaching functions.

Components Indicators
The teacher makes an adequate presentation of the topic (clear and well-
organized presentation, does not speak too quickly, emphasizes the
fundamental concepts of the notion of function) [22].
Teacher- The teacher anticipates and determines students’ misconceptions,
student interprets ‘incomplete’ thoughts, predicts how students solve specific
interaction tasks, and estimates those they will find interesting and challenging [25].
The teacher identifies current conceptions of functions that students
possess and then uses that conception to deepen or ‘reformulate’ the
teaching of the functions.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3330 8 of 22

Various rhetorical and argumentative resources are used to capture

students’ attention [32].
It facilitates the inclusion of students in the dynamics of the lesson.
Dialogue and communication between students are encouraged.
Interaction Consensus is sought from instances of discussion, analysis, and
between mathematical argumentation.
students The inclusion and participation of the group are favored, and exclusion is
avoided [32].
There are times when students take responsibility for the study (they raise
questions and present solutions; they explore examples and counter-
Autonomy
examples to investigate and make conjectures; they use a variety of tools
to reason, make connections, solve problems, and communicate them).
Formative
Systematic observation of students’ cognitive progress [32].
assessment

Table 5. Mediational suitability for teaching functions.

Components Indicators
Different ways of dealing with function teaching are used, various task
sequences, representations, procedures, explanations, and arguments
linked to the intended meaning are presented [25].
The notion of the function is accessed using set diagrams, value tables,
Material ordered pair sets, charts, algebraic expressions, among others [18].
resources Computer graphics and graphing calculators are used to model
(manipulative, functional relationships that allow visualizing the graph of a function as
calculators, a static curve and not as the path of a point.
computers) Controlled use of metaphors is made, being aware of its disadvantages.
The notion of function is introduced as a machine, curves are presented
as the trace that leaves a point moving subject to certain conditions, the
graph of an 𝑓 function is the set formed by the 𝑥, 𝑓(𝑥) coordinate
points, among others [37].
The distribution of students in the classroom allows carrying out the
Number of
intended teaching of the notion of functions.
students,
An adaptation of the process of mathematical instruction appropriate for
schedule and
the class schedule [32].
classroom
The educational space is adequate for the development of the intended
conditions
instructional process on functions.
Time (of The teacher identifies frequent errors and anticipates the responses that
collective can emerge from the presented questions on the notion of function. This
learning/mento allows classifying the activities according to their difficulty, designing of
ring; time of assessment instruments, estimating the processing time of a concrete task
learning) for students and groups of specific learning.

Table 6. Ecologic suitability for the teaching of functions.

Components Indicators
The notion of function is presented as a primary and unifying principle,
according to the secondary school curriculum [8].
Alignment to The mathematical instruction on function is developed from the
curriculum modeling of daily life situations or other sciences. Solutions of the
problems from the arithmetic, algebraic, and geometric points of view are
interpreted.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3330 9 of 22

The notion of function is linked to other mathematical objects, such as

Connections regularities, proportionality, isometric transformations, determinants of
and arguments matrix, limits, derivatives, among others [25].
Functions are used to respond to simple physical phenomena [40].
Socio-Laboral Functions are presented as the most suitable tool to respond to situations
usefulness from mathematics itself, other sciences, or everyday life.
It promotes the use of ICT (Information and Communication
Openness to
Technologies), primarily as a support for understanding the notion of
didactic
function and for manipulating representations linked to that
innovation
mathematical object [19].

4. Methodology
Our research’s methodological paradigm is qualitative [47] since we are interested in
determining aspects of the teacher’s didactic-mathematical knowledge that could guide
and systematize the reflection and evaluation of the instructional processes on the notion
of function. For this, in the first stage, specific didactic suitability criteria are defined for
teaching functions (Tables 1–6). In a second stage, due to the scant research on practical
experiences in professional training of teachers [8], we designed a micro-teaching
experience, in which a group of Chilean teachers could design, implement and reflect on
their mathematics lessons in a simulated context. Specifically, this study shows the class
given by one of the teachers participating in the experience, which dealt with the power
function.

4.1. Micro-Teaching
In this research, we use a micro-teaching space since we recognize, as in various
studies (e.g., [9,16]), that they are essential in teacher education. They can foster analysis,
self-observation, and self-reflection of the prospective teacher’s work in the mathematical
instruction processes. Besides, it allows feedback moments to improve teaching
performance and achieve more effective classroom and content management. The analysis
of video recordings of class simulations represents an element that contributes to the
feedback process, since it allows the observing of various aspects of teaching and learning
processes: communication-interaction in the classroom, use of didactic-mathematical
resources, the relevance of definitions and motivational activities used, among others.
According to Woolfolk Hoy and Burke Spero cited in Mergler and Tangen [12]:

Watching another demonstrate a required skill (such as teaching) is to engage in

a vicarious learning experience. Pre-service teachers need to be exposed to
skilled others who can model the teaching ‘performance’ to a high standard.
However, simply viewing teaching is not enough to result in meaningful
learning. Being able to then practice the task contributes to mastery of the
needed skills. Feedback that pre-service teachers receive about their teaching
also plays an important role in bolstering (or lowering) their efficacy. (p. 200)

In accordance with Mergler and Tangen [12] “this type of social and verbal
persuasion encourages pre-service teachers to reflect on their performance and offers an
outside perspective that can impact on their efficacy” (p. 200).

4.2. Subjects and Context

In the framework of a mathematics teacher training program at a Chilean university,
the first author of this article experimented in the course ‘Progressive Practice III’ using
micro-teaching with prospective teachers. This training program’s formative model
promotes the early linkage of professional work through progressive internships from the
fourth semester of the program. Six prospective teachers participated in this experiment.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3330 10 of 22

Following the methodological strategy of micro-teaching, the experimentation dynamics

during the course were that prospective teachers taught their lesson while the rest of the
future teachers would act as students of the educational level to which the class was
directed. The lessons were videotaped and had a maximum duration of 40 min, then the
teacher educator (first author of this article) opened the discussion with all the students to
reflect on the implemented class, using fragments of the recorded video when required.
At the time of the experimentation, the prospective Chilean teacher who, for this
study, we will call Teacher A, was in the sixth semester of the aforementioned high school
mathematics teacher training program. The total duration of this mathematics teacher
education program was eight semesters. Some subjects taken by Teacher A during his
training were: elementary algebra, algebra of functions, differential calculus, integral
calculus, foundations of the didactics of mathematics, learning and development, diversity
learning and metacognition, technological literacy, mathematical software, educational
informatics, teaching materials with ICT (Information and Communication Technologies),
among others.
It is essential to mention that the six future teachers participating did not receive
prior instruction for the design, implementation, and reflection of their lessons. However,
the trainer guided the reflection, considering the criteria and descriptors of suitability for
teaching the function, presented in Tables 1–6.
Before starting the process of instruction on the power function, teacher A provided,
to the teacher educator, the lesson plan where the following was made explicit: the
objective of the lesson, the content, the time for the intended teaching, the material
resources, and a brief description of the elements to be treated during the beginning,
development and closing of the lesson. That is, a lesson plan, describing definitions,
examples, the use of representations and sequences of tasks for teaching power function,
was not presented. The latter was not a requirement of the progressive practice III course.
The Chilean curriculum approaches mathematical learning in a progressive manner
and with increasing conceptual and procedural complexity. It promotes the application of
definitions, the use of algorithms, modeling, problem solving and the use of digital tools.
The notion of function and its representations is presented for the first time in eighth grade,
that is, with students from 13 to 14 years old. In ninth and tenth grade (secondary
education), the intention is for students from 14 to 16 years old to expand their knowledge
of linear functions by integrating quadratic and inverse functional relationships. In the
eleventh and twelfth grades (secondary education), students aged 16 to 18 must apply and
construct mathematical models of phenomena involving exponential functions,
logarithmic functions, power functions and trigonometric functions [48].
It is worth noting that the study of the notion of the power function is carried out in
Chile in twelve grades (secondary school education), that is, with students aged 17–18
years. The Chilean Ministry of Education proposes didactic guidelines for teaching
functions. They suggest linking the notion of power function with concepts (e.g., inverse
proportionality) from previous educational levels and using contextualized problems.
They also propose using power functions to model everyday life situations and
interpreting solutions to problems from arithmetic, algebraic and geometric points of view
as appropriate [48].
While Teacher A was in charge of the power function instruction process, the other
five prospective teacher participants played the role of students aged 17 to 18, whom for
this study, we will call Students 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. After completing the class on power
function, developed by Teacher A, an instance of feedback was made between the teacher
educator and the six prospective teachers to clarify certain notions and elements involved
in the teaching–learning processes on functions. Observing instructional processes allows
prospective teachers to reflect on how they will execute their own lessons [12].
Furthermore, strengths were identified, weaknesses explored, and greater reflection of
classroom interactions was provided through video recording review. The teacher
educator facilitated dialogue for the exchange of ideas and comments on Teacher A’s
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3330 11 of 22

performance. This allowed prospective teachers to reflect on the practice and determine
actions to improve the instructional process.

5. Analysis of the Reflection of Teaching Practice

Below is the analysis of a process of mathematical instruction on the notion of the
power function, developed in the context of micro-teaching by a Chilean Prospective
Teacher.

5.1. Description of the Practice Developed by Teacher A

The teacher begins the teaching process by explaining the lesson’s objective:
“Knowing and understanding the concept of the power function and its graphic representation.”
At the beginning of the instruction, the notions of power and exponential equation are
reinforced. Then he defines the power function: “It is all that function of the form 𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑎𝑥
where 𝑎 is a non-zero real number and 𝑛 must be a natural number greater than zero”.
The teacher then refers to the existence of four power function cases: “The power
function with exponent even is defined as Given 𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑎𝑥 if 𝑛 is an even number, we know
that for any 𝑥 its result will be positive, so both branches (symmetrical to the 𝑦 axis) grow as
quickly in the same direction”. He then points out: “An example of this equation…”. He quickly
corrects and states: “An example of this function is 𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑥 “. He then displays the
graphical representation of the relationship, using Geogebra. Based on the graphical
representation he mentions: “If the coefficient 𝑎 is positive, the branches open upwards (case 1)
and if the coefficient 𝑎 is negative, the branches open down” (case 2). As an example, he
proposes the expression 𝑓(𝑥) = 2𝑥 , and produces the graphical representation. For this,
he uses a tabular representation by assigning values to 𝑥 and getting the values of 𝑦. It is
worth noticing that, at the time of graphing, the teacher places the ordered pair in the plane,
exchanging the position of the coordinates, which he later corrects, and points out that the
representation corresponds to a positive parabola.
He then points out: “Two other cases of power function are those which exponent is odd
with 𝑎 positive (case 3) or with 𝑎 negative (case 4)”. He adds: “This type of function may cause
greater difficulty.” Once he presents the 𝑓(𝑥) = 2𝑥 ratio, he asks the students, “What if 𝑥
is zero?” The teacher states: “if 𝑥 = 0, then 𝑦 = 0 so this type of power function always goes
from the point zero, and the positive and negative values will be obtained in branch 1 and 2
respectively, i.e., the numerical values will be equal in each branch, but with the opposite sign”. In
the face of this assertion, a student asks, “What is the zero point?”. The teacher answers, “the
origin.”
As an activity, the teacher proposes some algebraic representations and requests
their graphic representations; for this purpose, he suggests moving from algebraic
representation to tabular and then to graphical. He then exposes the case of the expression
𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑎𝑥 with 𝑛 = 1 and asks, “How does the graph of that function behave?”. After
receiving some responses, he points out: “Effectively, the graph is a line. Therefore, it represents
the graph of a linear function. Then, it is not a power function, since its representation does not
correspond to a parabola.”
Another question he proposes to the students is “How does the graph of the 𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑥
function behave?”. The teacher produces the graph based on a tabular representation,
assigned the values {−1, 0, 1} to the variable 𝑥 , and mentions that the values of the
variable 𝑦 are {1, 1, 1}, respectively, and concludes: “in this case, it is a constant function
and not a power function.” One of the students asserts, if 0 = 1. The teacher points out that
he cannot explain it but that he will clarify the doubt in the next class. Subsequently, he
refers to the domain and the image of the power function. For this, he presents Figure 1. It
should be noted that, in subsequent activities, the teacher requests: “Determine the domain
and image of the following functions [e.g., 𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑥 ; 𝑓(𝑥) = 5𝑥 ; 𝑓(𝑥) = −7𝑥 ].” To do this,
he suggests using the information in Figure 1.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3330 12 of 22

Figure 1. Definition of the domain and image of a power function given by Teacher A.

Before class ends, a student asks, “What if 𝑛 is negative?” The teacher points out:
“Let’s see the behavior of the graph of the function 𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑥 ”. To do this, he uses the tabular
representation assigning the values {−2, 0, 2} to the variable 𝑥 and, along with the
students, determines that the values of the variable 𝑦 are , 0, . It is necessary to
indicate that the teacher does not adequately define the domain for the 𝑦 = 𝑥
relationship, because if we think of the relationship as a function of variable and actual
values, it should be noted that the domain is ℝ ∖ {0}. That is, the indeterminacy of is
not considered. The teacher continues to place the ordered pairs −2, and 2, on the
Cartesian plane, and calls attention to the fact that he omits the pair (0,0), to then correctly
sketch the graph of the function 𝑓: 𝑅\{0} → 𝑅 defined by 𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑥 and says, “Here
comes the idea of asymptotes.” A student asks, what are asymptotes? The teacher replies,
“Those that will never touch the 𝑌 and 𝑋 axis.”
Finally, the teacher synthetizes the lesson and ends it with the following: “Let us
remember that in the power functions, the exponent must always be a natural number greater than
one because if it were equal to one, it would be a linear function and if it were equal to zero it would
be a constant function”.

5.2. Reflection on Practice: Teacher A’s DMK

From the instructional process developed by Teacher A and the information
extracted, it was only possible to describe and analyze in detail the suitability of the
epistemic, cognitive, and mediational facets of the didactic dimension of Didactic-
Mathematical knowledge (DMK). To do this, we used the built suitability criteria and
descriptors (Tables 1–6).

5.2.1. Epistemic Suitability

From the definitions, arguments, and justifications provided by the teacher, we can
conclude that he had a partial mastery of the content’s knowledge. He failed to give
mathematically satisfactory answers to more than one of the tasks he proposed. It should
be noted that the proposed activities corresponded to those suggested in the Chilean
curriculum of twelfth grade. During the observed practice, connections of the notion of
power function with mathematical objects of more advanced educational levels were not
observed.
Certain ambiguities were evidenced in the class development. Mainly at the
beginning when the teacher provided the definition of power function and indicated:
“given the function 𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑎𝑥 , n must be a natural number greater than zero”.
However, when he summarized the lesson, he indicated that 𝑛 must be a number greater
than one since the expression represented a linear function and not a power function. That
is, the teacher did not consider the linear function as a particular case of the power
function. Then, it was evident that the teacher had no clarity on the meaning of reference
of the power function [49].
On the other hand, the teacher defined domain and image as independent concepts
of the notion of function. This was clearly evidenced in the activity he proposed to verify
the graphical behavior of the relationship 𝑦 = 𝑥 . In this activity, the teacher did not
adequately define the domain so that the relationship 𝑦 = 𝑥 was a function of variable
and real values; that is, the univalence condition was not fulfilled for 𝑥 = 0. Furthermore,
he did not specify that the relation 𝑦 = 𝑥 did not meet the definition of a power function
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3330 13 of 22

given at the beginning of the class. Nor did he make explicit that said relationship could
( )
represent a rational function of the form 𝑅(𝑥) = , where 𝑝 and 𝑞 are polynomial
( )
functions, and 𝑞 is not the zero polynomial, which domain is defined as the set of all real
numbers except those for which the denominator 𝑞 is zero, thus, missing the opportunity
to show an ‘irregular’ graphical representation that admits a symmetric, smooth and
discontinuous behavior.
Concerning the use of Languages, the teacher mobilized various representations
(algebraic, tabular, graphical) during the instructional process. However, he only made
conversions from algebraic to tabular representations and then to graphs. The importance
of providing students with a broad spectrum of ways to represent the notion of function
to avoid these representations being identified with a particular function is pointed out in
[43].
Regarding the procedures carried out by the teacher with the activities that he
proposed, only the evaluation of algebraic expressions was identified, and then the
ordered pairs were located on the Cartesian plane. The situations-problems that were
developed during the class were to exemplify definitions presented and non-contextualized
problems to reinforce the definitions introduced. Contextualized tasks that required power
functions to model phenomena were not identified, nor situations that represented
functional relationships where the arbitrary and univalent conditions of the function were
identified as crucial characteristics of said mathematical object.
Regarding the arguments, certain inaccuracies were identified by the teacher. We
could observe this when he raised the expression 𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑥 and proposed carrying out
the graphic representation giving the values {−1, 0, 1} to the variable 𝑥 and indicated
that the values of 𝑦 were {1, 1, 1}. The teacher could not explain what he proposed, and
approved that 0 = 1, instead of defining the domain of the ‘function’ which would
answer the student’s concern. Furthermore, he presented 𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑥 as a power function,
when in the initial definition that he proposed, he indicated that 𝑛 must be a natural
number greater than zero. A similar situation occurred when he proposed the relation 𝑦 =
𝑥 or when he referred to the meaning of the asymptotes. Likewise, during the
development of the class, there were no instances in which the Teacher asked the students
to justify the procedures developed and/or interpret the behavior of the graphs
constructed. Although he tried to answer all the students’ questions, his answers were
sometimes imprecise or even incorrect. This was evidenced by questions such as: “Teacher
0 = 1?”, “A linear function is not a power function?”, “Teacher, you referred to the zero
point. What is that?”, “Power function graphs are always parabolas?”, “What happens if
in the function 𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑎𝑥 , 𝑛 is negative?”, “What are the asymptotes?”, to name a few.
In conclusion, according to the situations-problems, definitions, representations,
properties, procedures, and arguments activated by the teacher in his practice, we can say that
the meaning of the notion of function implemented was not representative of the meanings
of reference. The approximation that he gave to the notion of power function was based
fundamentally on the meaning of graphical representation. However, as we could observe,
the students’ problems and questions required using the set theory’s function elements
and analytic expression.

5.2.2. Cognitive Suitability

At the beginning of the class, the teacher referred to the notions of power and
exponential equations as essential prior concepts for studying the power function. However,
he did not link these concepts with the notion under study. We could observe this when
he presented, in the Cartesian plane, the quadratic function 𝑓: 𝑅 → 𝑅 defined by 𝑓(𝑥) =
𝑥 (a particular case of a power function), obtaining a concave upward parabola, which he
did not relate to the parabola equation, wasting the opportunity to reinforce the fact that a
quadratic function can be seen as the equation of a parabola. This would have made it
possible to collect geometric information on the curve associated with the function.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3330 14 of 22

However, it would be necessary to specify that the equation of a parabola does not always
represent a functional relationship. Usually, the notion of function is presented as a
mathematical object foreign to others previously worked on (proportionality, equations,
etc.). In general, the fundamental mathematical notions that allow the introduction of a
particular function are not precisely identified [8]. Thus, it was found that Teacher A did
not corroborate the current conceptions that his students had about the notion of function.
According to [50], when teachers in training examine students’ procedures and inquire
about the learner’s mathematical understanding, they can identify and analyze what
aspects are required in the instructional process to maximize their students’ learning.
Makonye [21] suggests that using different contexts and interrelating diverse
representations of the notion of function favors students’ learning. In this sense, Teacher
A’s intention to incorporate graphic, tabular, and algebraic representations in his
instructional process was appreciated. Although all the representations that he used
contain the same information, they took different cognitive processes. That is, graphic
representation favors visualization and is related to geometry, tabular representation
highlights the idea of correspondence and numerical aspects, and algebraic representation
emphasizes symbolic capacity and is linked to algebra [44].
As for curriculum adaptations, examples were only used in purely mathematical
contexts, which were presented after introducing a definition to show general aspects of
the power function. While typical activities of implementing procedures that promote
student participation to verify learning were presented, no situations involving power
functions or examples of deepening or counter-examples that allowed students to
anticipate difficulties and reduce confusion situations were proposed. This practice is
consistent with what was proposed by [40], who state that novice teachers show particular
difficulties in the choice and sequencing of examples, i.e., they mainly present typical
examples or exercises that require the use of algorithmic procedures, seen as a resolution
tool.
Given that the instructional process developed by Teacher A focused on algorithmic
techniques, there were no activities that promoted the study and analysis of the variability
of phenomena subject to change, where the notion of function has special significance.
Although Teacher A proposed a definition and presented various representations of the
power function, the cognitive structure associated with a mathematical object, in addition
to formal definitions and representations, involves mental images, models, examples,
counter-examples, and relations to other mathematical notions [45]. In this sense, Teacher
A had the challenge to include these elements to achieve high cognitive demand.
In this way, we can observe that the teacher’s practice conformed to traditional
teaching habits. That is, there was a significant predominance of mechanical and
algorithmic processes that prevented a significant appropriation of the notion of power
function by students. Sierpinska [43] explains that the usual or traditional ways of coping
with the teaching of functions are not sufficient for students to build the object’s holistic
meaning or understand its entire range of applications. Although teacher A used elements
from set theory to define the notion of power function, function-formula, and function-
curve associations predominated in the development of his class. These criteria could lead
to reject functional relationships and admit non-functional objects [34].

5.2.3. Mediational Suitability

During the class, the teacher used technological resources; mainly, he used the
Geogebra software as a digital tool to show students the graphic behavior of the
relationships he presented. However, in the instructional process, the Geogebra software
was only manipulated by the teacher; that is, the students did not have access to the
software, which, accompanied by a well-planned activity, could strengthen one of the
partial meanings of the notion of function, as a graphic representation.
The teacher’s intention to incorporate in the development of his class tables of values
and graphical representations was valued, as this allowed students to visualize the
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3330 15 of 22

covariation of the variables involved [35]. However, the usual forms of representation
were not sufficient for students to construct the holistic meaning of the object or
understand the full range of its applications [43]. Focusing exclusively on algorithmic
processes leads to considering the mathematical function as a mechanical formula, where
the construction of tables is a simple requirement for graphing.
Although the teacher’s use of metaphorical resources was not explicit, the existence of
the metaphor described in [37] was perceived in his speech, “Curves are the trace that
leaves a point that moves subject to certain conditions, and the analysis of these conditions
allows finding an equation that meets the points of the curve” (p. 405) when he stated:
“given the function 𝑓(𝑥) = 2𝑥 , if 𝑥 = 0, then 𝑦 = 0, therefore, this type of power function
always goes from zero, and the positive and negative values in branches 1 and 2 respectively will be
obtained, i.e., the numeric values will be equal in each branch, but with an opposite sign.”
It is important to note that “from the work of Fourier, Cauchy, and Dirichlet, among
others, it was accepted as graphs of functions, curves that could not be trajectories” [37] (p.
408). In this case, the teacher explained something static in dynamic terms, which is a
metaphor that he did not control and was unaware of its consequences.
Finally, given the micro-teaching context in which the power function class occurred,
both the physical space and students’ distribution in the classroom were appropriate.
Perhaps, for this reason, the teacher did not see the need to reorganize the room’s
distribution and the students. This aspect could be explored in studies conducted in
authentic contexts.

5.3. Some Aspects of Interest in Teacher A’s Reflection: Meta Didactic-Mathematical Dimension
of the DMK
In the process of instruction on the power function developed by teacher A, a deep
reflection on affective, interactional and ecological suitability was not achieved. A possible
explanation could lie in characteristics of the micro-teaching contexts. However, at the end
of the instructional process, a feedback activity was carried out between the teacher
educator and prospective teachers. This was a reflective space in which we also used our
criteria and suitability descriptors proposal for teaching functions. In this space, questions,
comments, guidance, and suggestions were raised that led to the clarification of certain
notions and elements involved in the teaching–learning processes on functions. Likewise,
the video recording was analyzed to generate spaces of self-observation and self-reflection
of Teacher A’s work and the questions of other prospective teachers (that acted as
students). This allowed visualizing the suitability of the use of resources, and the precision
of definitions and given answers, among others. One of the aspects reflected upon was the
meanings of the function. In this regard, the following discussion was held between the
prospective teachers and the teacher educator:
Teacher educator: While in your class you defined the power function, but you did not reinforce
the meaning of functional relationship. How would you explain or elaborate on the meaning of
function?
Teacher A: I would say that a function is any element of a set, starting, that corresponds to an
element in the set of arrival. Mmm [...] I think I would explain it with a diagram [Teacher A draws
on the whiteboard a diagram like the one presented in Figure 2].
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3330 16 of 22

Figure 2. Image similar to the one made by Teacher A.

Student 1: I would start by pointing out that the function is a relationship between two sets and
use the machine to explain the relationship, but I think the machine is relevant when first teaching
functions, then it could generate confusion and students might be left with only the idea of the
machine.
Teacher A: Hmm, I also think I would use the machine to explain that we take one number,
transform it and get another.
Teacher educator: In the definition you provide on the power function, you do not refer to the
domain and co-domain of the function, this is mentioned in another part of the class. Do you
consider that it would be convenient to incorporate in your definition of function the notions of
domain and co-domain?
Teacher A: I thought about it, but I considered that giving the definition of the power function
and then referring to the domain and range would be easier to understand. Now I question it, and
I do not know why I left it aside if the domain and range are part of the definition.
Teacher educator: If we consider the notion of domain and co-domain as inherent elements of the
definition of a function, can we answer the problem that arose when you proposed the expression
𝑓(𝑥) = 0 ?
Teacher A: Maybe yes [...] I have to think about it more.
Student 2: In that case the domain of the function 𝑓(𝑥) = 0 would have to exclude zero because
0 is not 1.

From the above dialogue, it was found that the explanations given by the prospective
teachers considered only some aspects of the reference meaning of functions (e.g. the idea
of correspondence, relation, elements of set theory). This led the teacher educator to
present the historical and epistemological journey of the notion of function to strengthen
prospective teachers’ personal meaning and bring that significance closer to the holistic
meaning of reference [42,43,51]. Another issue discussed was how to teach functions to
encourage student learning. While Teacher A referred to the importance of going through
different representations and explained the difficulties this creates for twelve grade
students, he only emphasized the relevance of transiting from algebraic to tabular
representations and from there to graphs, as exemplified in the following excerpt:
Teacher A: I have taught lessons on power functions, and when I presented the expression
𝑓(𝑥) = 2𝑥 and asked students to determine the graph, the students would say, “Teacher, what
do we have to do?”. They did not automatically resort to the table. They did not understand that
in order to produce the graph, it was necessary to give values to the variable 𝑥 and then to
evaluate to obtain the values of the variable 𝑦.
Teacher educator: Would you employ other representations to enhance the learning of the
functions?
Teacher A: I would explain to them that they should give values to the variable 𝑥 to then obtain
the values of 𝑦. Then, they could determine several points and locate them in the Cartesian plane.

This instance discussed the importance of identifying the mathematical object’s

different representations and transiting through all of them. It also reflected on the
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3330 17 of 22

previous knowledge needed to address power function teaching, making it possible to

conclude that it is essential to clarify a mathematical function’s general definition.
Another of the elements discussed was that of conflict interactions. Interactions
between teachers and students are often regulated by rules, habits, obligations, or non-
explicit norms, such as social norms and socio-mathematical norms (e.g., [52–54]. Social norms
regulate the interaction between teachers and students, while socio-mathematical norms
regulate the specific aspects of students’ mathematical discussions and influence learning
opportunities. Concerning the developed class, we could identify some social norms in
which students (prospective teachers) questioned the explanations described by Teacher
A. For example, when they raised concerns about proposition 0 = 1, given by Teacher A,
or when he indicated that the graph of power functions was always a parabola. However,
there were other situations where students did not adopt a critical attitude based on
knowledge already ‘acquired,’ i.e., the case of the activity in which they jointly approved
(teacher and students) that = 0, or when they recognized “functions” that had not been
well defined. The above is in line with [22] on the importance of considering functional
sub-concepts as part of the function’s definition. This was reinforced by the teacher
educator, who emphasized the importance of presenting functions with explicit domains
and co-domains to avoid the belief that every function has a natural or real domain and
co-domain. Another element that was reflected upon referred to when Teacher A
presented the case of the expression 𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑎𝑥 with 𝑛 = 1 and asked “How does the
graph of that function behave?”, and immediately indicated that it was a linear function
and not a power function:
Teacher educator: Among your examples, you posed verifying the graph of the
expression 𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑎𝑥 with 𝑛 = 1 What was the purpose of the task?
Teacher A: Show that the exponent cannot be equal to 1 because it would become a linear function.
Teacher educator: But in the definition provided at the beginning of the class it was made explicit:
𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑎𝑥 where 𝑎 is a non-zero real number and 𝑛 must be a natural number greater than
zero.
Teacher A: Hmm [...] then the definition should be for 𝑛 a real number other than zero and one.
Because when it is raised to zero, the function is constant, and when it is raised to one, the function
is linear.
Teacher educator: In this case, would we have to exclude 𝑛 = 2 because with 𝑛 = 2 we would
obtain a quadratic function?
Teacher A: Hmm [...] so I couldn’t discard zero nor one?
Student 3: It is that in that case, the constant, linear, quadratic functions etc., would be particular
cases of a power function.

It is worth noticing that Teacher A also proposed in the development of his class,
analyzing the graphical behavior of expressions such as 𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑥 which did not satisfy
the definition he proposed. This forced Teacher A’s reflection on the power function’s
definition and implied the teacher educator’s reinforcement of this mathematical object’s
conceptualization.
On the other hand, on the relevance of using resources and means that could
facilitate understanding functions, Teacher A stated, “It is essential that students participate
during class, when they resolve an exercise on the board, they can reinforce the contents.” He also
noted, “Using Geogebra allows me to display the behavior of graphs more accurately.” In this
regard, the teacher educator referred to what is indicated in various investigations (e.g.,
[55,56]). That is, to achieve an adequate understanding of the notion of function, it is
necessary to transit from algebraic representation to graph and vice versa. Therefore, it is
essential to visualize the graph of a function with its algebraic and tabular expression, and
this is where Geogebra can have a significant impact. That is to say, the difficulties that
may arise in modeling activities with functions can be supported with the use of ICT.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3330 18 of 22

However, it is clear that dynamic graphics facilitate, even if unconsciously, the structuring
of graphs as traces of points. Furthermore, that the explicit or implicit use of dynamic
metaphors (like “the graph is a path” type) has its advantages, but also its disadvantages
when the graph is perceived as a trajectory and not as a static representation [37].
Finally, the teacher’s responsibility for creating environments conducive to learning
was discussed, proposing mathematically rich activities that belong to the students’ field
of interest. In this sense, the teacher educator and future teachers reflected on how to
motivate students to study functions.
Teacher educator: What kind of mathematical tasks should be proposed?
Teacher A: I consider that the class I just taught is very mechanical and does not motivate
students. I would look for a new way to teach the power function, perhaps using problem-solving.
Student 5: I believe that contextualized examples should be shown with situations of interest to
students. For example, the relationship between shirts and player. A shirt belongs only to one
player, but a player could have more than one shirt. Hmm [...] we would have to think it through.

Given this statement, the idea of developing mathematical instruction processes

promoting diverse problem situations (some contextualized within mathematics and
others based on functional models, it is possible to study phenomena from everyday life
or from other sciences) was discussed. Collaborative work and dialogical and
argumentative interaction must prevail since they potentially have greater interactional
suitability than those of a magisterial type, since students would have more significant
interaction with the mathematical objects that are intended to institutionalize and
formalize, in our case, the notion of function.
To conclude this section, it is worth saying that the micro-teaching processes allowed
prospective teachers to broadly perceive their performance and that of other teachers in
training through discussion, analysis, feedback, and reflection of the experiences. For
example, in another micro-teaching process developed within the framework of the subject
“Progressive Practice III,” a class on inverse function was implemented. In this instance,
the instruction process was in the charge of a trainee teacher who participated in the role
of student in the class on the power function of Teacher A. We could observe that this
future teacher (Student 2 in this article) incorporated into his inverse function class
elements discussed in Teacher A’s class reflection. This is exemplified in the following
excerpt:
Teacher educator: When planning your class on inverse function, what aspects did you consider
relevant to mention?
Student 2: Well, the first thing was to mention what are the requirements for the function to
admit inverse. That’s why I started the class reinforcing what is an injective, surjective and
bijective function. Also, I think contextualized examples are useful for modeling life situations,
and physics. Hmm [...] and well students always learn more when examples are shown.
Teacher educator: To exemplify the notion of injective function, you used the following situation:
“If we define a first set, Chilean persons and the arrival set the RUN (Chilean ID number). This
means that each person has a designated RUN number that is unique for that person, which does
not mean that there are more RUN numbers that are not yet used, but every person has a RUN
and two Chilean persons cannot have the same RUN”. What is the intention of this type of
examples?
Student 2: First, show a contextualized example where the relationship between the elements of
the two sets is not with numbers and reinforce the idea that each element of the arrival set has at
most one element or a preimage in the departure set.
Teacher educator: That is, was your intention to show a problem that mobilizes one of the
meanings of the notion of function?
Student 2: Yes, the function as an arbitrary correspondence. And present a problem
contextualized to everyday life to exemplify the definition of injective function.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3330 19 of 22

In general, the experimentation showed that through micro-teaching processes and

the use of proposed criteria that guide reflection in such contexts (such as those included
in Tables 1–6), future teachers were able to identify aspects through which they could
improve their teaching practice and move towards more suitable teaching.

6. Final Reflections
In this article, we report the results of a study carried out with six prospective
teachers during one semester to promote their meta didactic-mathematical knowledge
required for reflection on their practice (or that of others) when teaching lessons on
functions. In doing so, we seek to answer the questions: What dimensions and components
could mathematics teachers consider to guide teaching on functions? How can the reflection of
future mathematics teachers on function classes be promoted and systematized?
The first challenge that arose regarding the first question was a large amount of
information and recommendations from the scientific literature on the processes of
teaching and learning of functions and on the knowledge required by the teacher to teach
this notion. We carried out a thorough review of the scientific literature and, based on the
proposal of the DMK model (its dimensions, sub-dimensions, and, specifically, the notion
of didactic suitability), it was possible to organize the information into six facets (epistemic,
cognitive, affective, interactional, mediational and ecological), each with particular
components and descriptors for the notion of function. Thus, the six partial suitability
criteria, presented in Tables 1–6, for the teaching and learning of functions constitute a
proposed theoretical-methodological tool to guide teaching and reflection of classes on
functions. Such components and their indicators could be considered a first approximation
to the didactic-mathematical knowledge of reference of teachers on the function.
In this research, our proposal of didactic-mathematical knowledge of reference on
functions was used during a semester to guide six future teachers’ reflections on their
classes regarding this notion, which were developed in micro-teaching contexts. We
exemplified the above with a specific case, that of the lesson developed by teacher A on
the power function. The prospective teacher participants in this research could experience
spaces for reflection based on dialogue, discussion, and analysis among peers, on the
epistemic (mathematical richness of objects and processes), cognitive (features of students
thinking and learning, and how to enhance their learning), and mediational (resources and
material means, time, etc.) suitability of the practice developed by Teacher A. This also
generated opportunities to promote, in the six participants, their DMK on functions.
However, we obtained insufficient information to perform an in-depth analysis of
affective, interactional, and ecological suitability. A possible explanation for the latter
could lie in the very nature of micro-teaching contexts, for, as we saw, these are controlled
environments and, in our case, had only a small number of prospective teachers. For this
reason, it is necessary to continue researching spaces of reflection to analyze the suitability
criteria that could not be analyzed in this article.
Thus, regarding the second question, we can assert that another essential element of
our proposal is micro-teaching spaces [12], which provide prospective teachers with a safe
and controlled environment to develop their practice and reflect on their performance. In
no way does this methodology replace the teaching practice in a real context, but it allows
gaining experience, self-assessment, and receiving of immediate feedback on the elements
that present more significant strengths and/or deficiencies. In other words, it is
recommended to incorporate in the initial training of teachers experiences in simulated
and real contexts to explore possible pedagogical problems that lead to the reflection and
critical analysis of teaching. Furthermore, the micro-teaching spaces allow working on the
development of the diverse dimensions of the didactic-mathematical knowledge of the
participating teachers. For example, the prospective teacher presenting the class has to use
DMK on functions to plan and implement his lessons, and the prospective teachers that
impersonate students have to “put on the shoes” of the students from the corresponding
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3330 20 of 22

level. That is to say, acting and thinking as real students would (cognitive and affective
facets of the DMK).
Thus, conjunctively considering micro-teaching spaces and the suitability criteria on
functions that we propose herein (to guide reflection) can be a useful strategy for initial
teacher education. Nevertheless, our proposal is not restricted to initial education. Tables
1–6 could be used in diverse moments of the didactic design (preliminary study, design,
implementation, and evaluation) by researchers, teachers, and teacher educators. In the
case that we used as an example, the authors of this article (teacher educators) used the
criteria and suitability descriptors on functions to analyze and evaluate Teacher A’s
didactic-mathematical knowledge at the implementation moment, and, subsequently, to
develop a space for reflection with future teachers around the analysis and assessment of
Teacher A’s practice. Teachers (or future teachers) can use these criteria to reflect on their
planning and implementation of classes on functions, seeking potential improvements to
rework their teaching designs, and, thus, begin to “make the practice of reflection habitual”
[4]. Finally, it is necessary to point out that teaching practice is complex by nature and that,
in the process, the six facets we have presented intervene simultaneously and dynamically.
Therefore, the DMK model used has been fundamental for our study since few models
provide theoretical-methodological notions that allow the identification and
individualization of such facets and the analysis of their components separately for
research and training purposes.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.E.P.-U. and L.R.P.-F.; Methodology, Y.E.P.-U. and

L.R.P.-F.; Theoretical Framework, Y.E.P.-U. and L.R.P.-F.; Investigation (criteria and descriptors for
the teaching of functions), Y.E.P.-U. and L.R.P.-F.; Analysis, Y.E.P.-U. and L.R.P.-F.; Writing-original
draft preparation, Y.E.P.-U. and L.R.P.-F.; Writing-review and editing, Y.E.P.-U. and L.R.P.-F. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work has been developed within the framework of the research project Fondecyt
1200005 funded by de Angencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo (ANID) of Chile.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Shulman, L.S. Knowledge, and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harv. Educ. Rev. 1987, 57, 1–23.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411.
2. Ball, D.L. Bridging practices: Intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach. J. Teach. Educ. 2000, 51, 241–
247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487100051003013.
3. Hill, H.C.; Ball, D.L.; Schilling, S.G. Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge of students. J. Res. Math. Educ. 2008, 39, 372–
400.
4. Schoenfeld, A.; Kilpatrick, J. Towards a theory of profiency in teaching mathematics. In Tools and Processes in Mathematics Teacher
Education; Tirosh, D., Wood, T.L., Eds.; Sense Publishers: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 321–354.
5. Mishra, P.; Koehler, M. Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teach. Coll. Rec.
2006, 108, 1017–1054.
6. Pino-Fan, L.; Godino, J.D.; Font, V. Assessing key epistemic features of didactic-mathematical knowledge of prospective teach-
ers: The case of the derivate. J. Math. Teach. Educ. 2018, 21, 63–94. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-016-9349-8.
7. Wilkie, K.J. Upper primary school teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching functional thinking in algebra. J. Math. Teach.
Educ. 2013, 17, 397–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-013-9251-6.
8. Steele, M.D.; Hillen, A.F.; Smith, M.S. Developing mathematical knowledge for teaching in a methods course: The case of func-
tion. J. Math. Teach. Educ. 2013, 16, 451–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-013-9243-6.
9. Fernández, M.L. Investigating how and what prospective teachers learn through microteaching lesson study. Teach. Teach. Educ.
2010, 26, 351–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.09.012.
10. Dewey, J. The relation of theory to practice in education. In Teacher Education in America: A Documentary History; Borrowman,
M., Ed.; Teachers College Press: New York, NY, USA, 1965; pp. 140–171.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3330 21 of 22

11. Grossman, P.; Compton, C.; Igra, D.; Ronfeldt, M.; Shahan, E.; Williamson, P. Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspec-
tive. Teach. Coll. Rec. 2009, 111, 2055–2100.
12. Mergler, A.G.; Tangen, D. Using microteaching to enhance teacher efficacy in preservice teachers. Teach. Educ. 2010, 21, 199–
210. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210902998466.
13. Benton-Kupper, J. The Microteaching Experience: Student Perspectives. Education 2001, 121, 830–835.
14. Donnelly, R.; Fitzmaurice, M. Towards productive reflective practice in microteaching. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 2011, 48, 335–346.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2011.593709.
15. Altuk, Y.G.; Kaya, V.H.; Bahceci, D. A Study on Developing “Microteaching Scale” for Student Teachers. Procedia-Soc. Behav.
Sci. 2012, 46, 2964–2969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.598.
16. Arsal, Z. Microteaching and preservice teachers’ sense of self-efficacy in teaching. Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 2014, 37, 453–464.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2014.912627.
17. Brookfield, S.D. Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher, 1st ed.; Josse-Bass: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1995; pp. 1–320.
18. Akkoç, H.; Tall, D.O. The simplicity, complexity, and complication of the function concept. In Proceedings of the 26th Confer-
ence of PME, Norwich, UK, 21–26 July 2002; Cockburn, A.D., Nardi, E., Eds.; Volume 2, pp. 25–32.
19. Panaoura, A.; Michael-Chrysanthou, P.; Gagatsis, A.; Elia, I.; Philippou, A. A Structural Model Related to the Understanding of
the Concept of Function: Definition and Problem Solving. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2017, 15, 723–740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-
016-9714-1.
20. Wang, Y.; Barmby, P.; Bolden, D. Understanding Linear Function: A Comparison of Selected Textbooks from England and
Shanghai. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2015, 15, 131–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9674-x.
21. Makonye, J.P. Teaching functions using a realistic mathematics education approach: A theoretical perspective. Int. J. Educ. Sci.
2014, 7, 653–662. https://doi.org/10.1080/09751122.2014.11890228.
22. Dede, Y.; Soybaş, D. Preservice Mathematics Teachers’ Experiences about Function and Equation Concepts. Eurasia J. Math.
Sci. Technol. Educ. 2011, 7, 89–102. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75183.
23. Norman, A. Teachers mathematical knowledge of the concept of function. In The Concept of Function. Aspects of Epistemology and
Pedagogy; Harel, G., Dubinsky, E., Eds.; Mathematical Association of America: Washington, DC, USA, 1992; Volume 25, pp. 215–
232.
24. Even, R. Subject-matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge: Prospective secondary teachers and the function con-
cept. J. Res. Math. Educ. 1993, 24, 94–116. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.24.2.0094.
25. Nyikahadzoyi, M.R. Teachers’ knowledge of the concept of a function: A theoretical framework. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2013, 13,
261–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9486-9.
26. Hatisaru, V.; Erbas, A. Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching the Function Concept and Student Learning Outcomes. Int. J. Sci.
Math. Educ. 2017, 15, 703–722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9707-5.
27. Neubrand, M. Conceptualizations of professional knowledge for teachers of mathematics. ZDM Int. J. Math. Educ. 2018, 50, 601–
612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0906-0.
28. Pino-Fan, L.; Assis, A.; Castro, W.F. Towards a methodology for the characterization of teachers’ didactic-mathematical
knowledge. EURASIA J. Math. Sci. Techonol. Educ. 2015, 11, 1429–1456. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1403a.
29. Godino, J.D.; Batanero, C.; Font, V. The onto-semiotic approach to research in mathematics education. ZDM Int. J. Math. Educ.
2007, 39, 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-006-0004-1.
30. Godino, J.D.; Batanero, C.; Font, V. The onto-semiotic approach: Implications for the prescriptive character of didactics. Learn.
Math. 2019, 39, 37–42.
31. Breda, A.; Pino-Fan, L.; Font, V. Meta didactic-mathematical knowledge of teachers: Criteria for the reflection and assessment
on teaching practice. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2017, 13, 1893–1918 https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.01207a.
32. Godino, J.D.; Batanero, C.; Rivas, H.; Arteaga, P. Componentes e indicadores de idoneidad de programas de formación de
profesores en didáctica de las matemáticas [Components and indicators of suitability of teacher training programmes in didac-
tics of mathematics]. REVEMAT 2013, 8, 46–74. https://doi.org/10.5007/1981-1322.2013v8n1p46.
33. Breda, A.; Font, V.; Pino-Fan, L. Criterios valorativos y normativos en la Didáctica de las Matemáticas: El caso del constructo
idoneidad didáctica [Valuative and normative criteria in the Didactics of Mathematics: The case of the didactic suitability con-
struct]. Bolema 2018, 32, 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-4415v32n60a13.
34. Artigue, M. La enseñanza de los principios del cálculo: Problemas epistemológicos, cognitivos y didácticos [Teaching the prin-
ciples of calculus: Epistemological, cognitive and didactic problems]. In Ingeniería Didáctica en Educación Matemática; Gómez, P.,
Ed.; Grupo Editorial Iberoamericano: México, Mexico, 1995; pp. 97–140.
35. Nitsch, R.; Fredebohm, A.; Bruder, R.; Kelava, A.; Naccarella, D.; Leuders, T.; Wirtz, M. Students competencies in working with
functions in secondary mathematics education—empirical examination of a competence structure model. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ.
2015, 13, 657–682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9496-7.
36. Adu-Gyamfi, K.; Bossé, M.J. Processes and reasoning in representations of linear functions. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2013, 12, 167–
192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9416-x.
37. Font, V.; Acevedo, J. Fenómenos relacionados con el uso de metáforas en el discurso del profesor. El caso de las gráficas de
funciones [Phenomena related to the use of metaphors in the teacher's speech. The case of function graphs]. Enseñanza De Las
Cienc. 2003, 21, 405–418.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3330 22 of 22

38. Sánchez, V.; Llinares, S. Four student teachers’ pedagogical reasoning on functions. J. Math. Teach. Educ. 2003, 6, 5–25.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022123615355.
39. Zaslavsky, O.; Harel, G.; Manaster, A. A teacher’s treatment of examples as reflection of her knowledge-base. In Proceedings of
the 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME), Prague, Czech Republic,
16–21 July 2006. Novotná, J.; Moraová, H.; Krátká, M.; Stehlíková, N., Eds.; Volume 5, pp. 457–464.
40. Figueiredo, C.; Contreras, L.; Blanco, L. La ejemplificación del concepto función: Diferencias entre profesores noveles y profe-
sores expertos [The exemplification of the function concept: Differences between novice and expert teachers]. Educ. Matemática
2012, 24, 73–105.
41. Sintema, E.J.; Marban, J.M. Preservice Teachers’ Knowledge of Identifying and Clearing Pupils’ Misconceptions about Inverse
and Composite Functions via Vignettes. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2021, 17, em1930.
https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9378.
42. Pino-Fan, L.; Parra-Urrea, Y.; Castro, W.F. Significados de la función pretendidos por el currículo de matemáticas chileno
[Meanings of function intended by the Chilean mathematics curriculum]. Magis Rev. Int. De Investig. En Educ. 2019, 11, 201–220.
https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.m11-23.sfpc.
43. Sierpinska, A. Understanding the Notion of Function. In The Concept of Function Aspects of Epistemology and Pedagogy; Harel, A.,
Dubinsky, E., Eds.; Mathematical Association of America: Washington, DC, USA, 1992; pp. 25–58.
44. Janvier, C. Problems of Representation in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics; Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1987; p.
247.
45. Vinner, S.Y.; Dreyfus, T. Images and definitions for the concept of function. J. Res. Math. Educ. 1989, 20, 356–366.
https://doi.org/10.2307/749441.
46. Ramírez, R.; Ibarra, S.; Pino-Fan, L. Prácticas evaluativas y significados evaluados por profesores del bachillerato mexicano
sobre la noción de ecuación lineal [Evaluative practices and meanings evaluated by Mexican high school teachers on the notion
of linear equation]. Educ. Matemática 2020, 32, 69–98. https://doi.org/10.24844/em3202.03.
47. Creswell, J.W. Research Design. Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2009; pp.
1–342.
48. Mineduc. Bases Curriculares tercero y cuarto año medio. Ministerio de Educación Gobierno de Chile. Bases Curricula for Elev-
enth and Twelfth Grade (Secondary Education); Ministry of Education Government of Chile: 2019. Available online:
https://www.curriculumnacional.cl/614/articles-91414_bases.pdf (accessed on 20 August 2022).
49. Sullivan, M. Algebra y Trigonometry Eighth Edition; Pearson Education: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2008; pp. 1–1088.
50. Llinares, S.; Valls, J.; Roig, A.I. Aprendizaje y diseño de entornos de aprendizaje basado en videos en los programas de forma-
ción de profesores de matemáticas [Video-based learning and design of learning environments in mathematics teacher training
programs]. Educ. Matemática 2008, 20, 31–54.
51. Biehler, R. Reconstruction of Meaning as a Didactical Task: The Concept of Function as an Example. In Meaning in Mathematics
Education; Kilpatrick, J., Hoyles, C., Skovsmose, O., Eds.; Kluwer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 61–81.
52. Godino, J.D.; Font, V.; Wilhelmi, M.R.; Castro, C. Aproximación a la dimensión normativa en didáctica de las matemáticas desde
un enfoque ontosemiótico [Approximation to the normative dimension in didactics of mathematics from an ontosemiotic ap-
proach]. Enseñanza Cienc. 2009, 27, 59–76.
53. Yackel, E.; Cobb, P. Sociomathematical Norms, Argumentation, and Autonomy in Mathematics. J. Res. Math. Educ. 1996, 27,
458–477.
54. McClain, K.; Cobb, P. An analysis of development of sociomathematical norms in one first-grade classroom. J. Res. Math. Educ.
2001, 32, 236–266. https://doi.org/10.2307/749827.
55. Elia, I.; Panaoura, A.; Eracleous, A.; Gagatsis, A. Relations between Secondary Pupils’ Conceptions about Functions and Prob-
lem Solving in Different Representations. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2007, 5, 533–556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-006-9054-7.
56. Gómez Chacón, I.; Joglar, N. Developing competencies to teach exponential and logarithmic functions using Geogebra from a
holistic approach. Educ. Matemática Pesqui. 2010, 12, 485–513.